A story I heard from my rabbi, who may have heard it from Rabbi Altie Bukiet, the shliach of Lexington, MA (not sure).
When Frierdiker Rebbe and his chassidim were in Warsaw, there was a rich Jew, who wanted to provide them with hospitality and therefore built a big sukkah for them. One night they were sitting in it, farbrenging, when the Jew walked in, looked at them and sighed. Frierdiker Rebbe lifted up his head, looked at him and said: “You should have sighed before you sinned.” The Jew, shocked, asked: “What?” and walked out.
It turns out that earlier that evening, he had visited a theater (of sorts), and when he came back, he saw the contrast between the Rebbe sitting together with his chassidim, talking about Hashem, and the place where he had just been. So, he sighed. To which the Rebbe replied: “You should have sighed before you sinned.”
This story is of a similar character to the saying attributed to Rebbe Maharash, Frierdiker Rebbe’s grandfather (whom F"R is said to have resembled physically): Lehatchilo ariber (“higher a priori”). Some people, when something negative happens in their lives, or when they themselves do something wrong, make a decision to live on a higher level, to repent, to improve. Or, when they see an obstacle in their lives, they decide they have to elevate themselves, improve their character or way of life to climb over it.
While this is a proper thing to do b’dieved (post factum), Rebbe Maharash says you can do even better: live on a higher level to begin with. Don’t wait for something negative or troublesome to happen in your life to urge you to improve. Improve without it.
Friday, November 13, 2009
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Netzach and hod
A friend of mine asked me what netzach is. I gave him this old post of mine to read.
Now, what is hoid?
Now, what is hoid?
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
G-d and His potentials
A shiur from hemshech Samech Vov by Rabbi Paltiel that briefly reviews preceding answer to “Why Hashem created the world” and goes into meat and potatoes: explanation of the concept ein koach choser poel l’ma’alah — no power Above is lacking expression.
The question is: does Hashem need to “express” Himself in his Creation? And if He isn’t expressing Himself, is He missing something? Arizal seems to think so. Of course, one cannot say that Hashem is missing something — so, that’s why this world is here.
Rabbi Paltiel explains that first of all, Hashem has no powers Himself. No powers are intrinsic to Him — He is simple and has no parts, no “programs” to be found “inside” of Him. Hashem in His essence has no “personality”, no intellect or emotions. He creates them as tools — and if they are not expressed, they are lacking expression.
But, there is a footnote: “The reason we have just given is not a real reason.” Why? Because no possibility is missing up High. Hashem has no deficiencies.
Second, Rabbi Paltiel explains the difference between G-d and G-dliness. Eibeshter and Elokus. What is Elokus? Something between G-d and Creation — a concept that exists only in Kabbala and not in Chakirah, Jewish philosophy.
Third, Rabbi Paltiel explains that not only is there no lack in Hashem, but also no lack in His Light. (“If Atzilus has a brain, the moment Hashem creates it, it is full of all possible knowledge.”)
Finally, a resolution is reached, and why Arizal’s reason for creation of the world cannot be the deepest one is explained.
As a bonus, a very important topic — the differences between koichos and yechoilos (powers and potentials) of G-d — is covered.
Listen on.
People of artistic persuasion may appreciate the moshol at the beginning. Or not. :)
It doesn’t matter whether you’ve learned the hemshech or if you have any significant background in Chassidus Chabad. This is a crucial concept in understanding of our understanding [sic] of Hashem.
The question is: does Hashem need to “express” Himself in his Creation? And if He isn’t expressing Himself, is He missing something? Arizal seems to think so. Of course, one cannot say that Hashem is missing something — so, that’s why this world is here.
Rabbi Paltiel explains that first of all, Hashem has no powers Himself. No powers are intrinsic to Him — He is simple and has no parts, no “programs” to be found “inside” of Him. Hashem in His essence has no “personality”, no intellect or emotions. He creates them as tools — and if they are not expressed, they are lacking expression.
But, there is a footnote: “The reason we have just given is not a real reason.” Why? Because no possibility is missing up High. Hashem has no deficiencies.
Second, Rabbi Paltiel explains the difference between G-d and G-dliness. Eibeshter and Elokus. What is Elokus? Something between G-d and Creation — a concept that exists only in Kabbala and not in Chakirah, Jewish philosophy.
Third, Rabbi Paltiel explains that not only is there no lack in Hashem, but also no lack in His Light. (“If Atzilus has a brain, the moment Hashem creates it, it is full of all possible knowledge.”)
Finally, a resolution is reached, and why Arizal’s reason for creation of the world cannot be the deepest one is explained.
As a bonus, a very important topic — the differences between koichos and yechoilos (powers and potentials) of G-d — is covered.
Listen on.
People of artistic persuasion may appreciate the moshol at the beginning. Or not. :)
It doesn’t matter whether you’ve learned the hemshech or if you have any significant background in Chassidus Chabad. This is a crucial concept in understanding of our understanding [sic] of Hashem.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Can you trust your intuition?
Some people believe in figuring out things using intuition, not intelligence.
Others find this idea strange, to say the least. It seems to them that after all, being a human being is all about using one’s rationality, in knowing why something is wrong or right, good or bad, etc., not just getting a feeling from somewhere deep inside, over which one has no control.
It seems to me, intuition is only useful at the beginning, if you need a push to one direction or another, or in the middle, if you are stuck and don’t know where to go next. Or if you can’t follow the logic.
But not in the end, when you have to make a decision. I mean, if I’m making a decision for something or against it, it seems to me that I want to know why I made it; I want to be able to explain the logic to any stranger, not tell him that some mysterious force inside my pushed me towards this or against it.
Maybe it’s because I like to be in control.
Of my life.
I mean, sometimes it’s all about probabilities and uncertainties, but still, better some control than no control at all.
A lot of people believe that because things are in Eibeshter’s hands, we don’t have responsibility to take control and make decisions. Learning Jewish philosophy shows us they are wrong. Learning Chassidus shows us why they are wrong.
Others find this idea strange, to say the least. It seems to them that after all, being a human being is all about using one’s rationality, in knowing why something is wrong or right, good or bad, etc., not just getting a feeling from somewhere deep inside, over which one has no control.
It seems to me, intuition is only useful at the beginning, if you need a push to one direction or another, or in the middle, if you are stuck and don’t know where to go next. Or if you can’t follow the logic.
But not in the end, when you have to make a decision. I mean, if I’m making a decision for something or against it, it seems to me that I want to know why I made it; I want to be able to explain the logic to any stranger, not tell him that some mysterious force inside my pushed me towards this or against it.
Maybe it’s because I like to be in control.
Of my life.
I mean, sometimes it’s all about probabilities and uncertainties, but still, better some control than no control at all.
A lot of people believe that because things are in Eibeshter’s hands, we don’t have responsibility to take control and make decisions. Learning Jewish philosophy shows us they are wrong. Learning Chassidus shows us why they are wrong.
History (and future) of computing
(Trillions from MAYAnMAYA on Vimeo.)
So, how are we going to handle this? Trillion(s) of sources of information connected and communicating in a complex, chaotic way? Right now we have no tools to handle this and no idea how to get those tools. But we can ask for advice from Hashem. Or from Nature, whatever view you prefer.
Because if you look at our body, it has trillions of cells (each designed in a much more complicated way and handling much more information than a single computer) communicating with each other and doing so successfully to allow our bodies to live (in fact, so successfully that you go through your day not giving it much thought how much information exchange needs to happen in order for you to do your basic tasks for a minute — forget something as complicated as playing a violin, or giving a lecture, or... I don’t know... fencing).
I mean, we don’t think about it much, and we take it for granted, but that thing between our ears, the human brain, is the most complicated structure in the whole known Universe. And female human brain is probably the most complicated structure in both known and unknown Universe. Think about it... Next time you want to ride a motorcycle, think twice. If not out of respect to yourself, then at least out of respect to your Creator.
P.S. Although, there is something I am probably not getting. How will we have trillions of computers? Right now we have, what, seven, eight billion people on this planet? Let’s say, in the nearest future we will have 10 billion people. So, if we have a trillion computers, that’s 100 computers per person?
If so, kinda cool…
Monday, November 9, 2009
Why yes?
In parshas Vayeira (yes, I know, I am a week late), Avraham tells Sara (translation from Chabad.org):
My rabbi asked the question: there are so many requirements and prohibitions in Torah, and a Jew has to keep them all. Let the man look at his wife. Why not?
And the answer is that Avraham did not live his life like everybody else. Before doing something in life, he didn’t ask “why not?”, he asked “why yes?” If he was able to achieve his purpose in any area (e.g., having a loving marriage) without something (e.g., focusing on physical attraction), he didn’t need this something in his life.
This lesson is directly applicable to us. OK, we are on a completely different level from Avraham, and in order to have normal marriage, we cannot be like him. In fact, Jews were already on a different level in Egypt, and that is why Jewish women’s mirrors (with which they beautified themselves) were accepted as a donation for building of the mishkan.
But in our lives in general, before doing something, we have to ask a question: why yes? Not desire to do something and do it, unless it is prohibited by Halacha (and if it is, find a loophole out of the prohibition, ask three, five, ten rabbis, until one gives you a heter), but do the opposite. Ask yourself: in what way does this connect me to Hashem? And if it doesn’t, why am I doing it?
This is the standard shpil, you can hear it from many Chabad rabbis, in many a Chabad House.
But there is something more. There is a difference between Avraham and us. He lived before Mattan Torah, and we live after. We live after the time when it became possible to make mundane holy.
Furthermore, we live after the revelation of Chassidus. After revelation of Chassidus in a form that can be internalized: through Chassidus Chabad. And learning Chassidus Chabad allows you to answer the question “why yes”. It allows you to find a way “how yes”. Not so that you can do already whatever you wanted to do and not feel guilty about it (even on the most Chassidish, most eidel level).
But so that you can bring G-dliness into one more aspect of this world’s reality. Make holy one more thing that was mundane.
A Midrash asks: what does this mean that “now he knew” that Sara was a beautiful woman? He hadn’t known it before? It answers: when they were crossing Nile to go to Egypt, Sara dropped something (I think a scarf) in the water. Avraham bent down to pick it up and saw Sara’s reflection in the water. Then he realized that she was a beautiful woman. Before that, apparently, he had not looked at her to see if she was beautiful or not.
My rabbi asked the question: there are so many requirements and prohibitions in Torah, and a Jew has to keep them all. Let the man look at his wife. Why not?
And the answer is that Avraham did not live his life like everybody else. Before doing something in life, he didn’t ask “why not?”, he asked “why yes?” If he was able to achieve his purpose in any area (e.g., having a loving marriage) without something (e.g., focusing on physical attraction), he didn’t need this something in his life.
This lesson is directly applicable to us. OK, we are on a completely different level from Avraham, and in order to have normal marriage, we cannot be like him. In fact, Jews were already on a different level in Egypt, and that is why Jewish women’s mirrors (with which they beautified themselves) were accepted as a donation for building of the mishkan.
But in our lives in general, before doing something, we have to ask a question: why yes? Not desire to do something and do it, unless it is prohibited by Halacha (and if it is, find a loophole out of the prohibition, ask three, five, ten rabbis, until one gives you a heter), but do the opposite. Ask yourself: in what way does this connect me to Hashem? And if it doesn’t, why am I doing it?
This is the standard shpil, you can hear it from many Chabad rabbis, in many a Chabad House.
But there is something more. There is a difference between Avraham and us. He lived before Mattan Torah, and we live after. We live after the time when it became possible to make mundane holy.
Furthermore, we live after the revelation of Chassidus. After revelation of Chassidus in a form that can be internalized: through Chassidus Chabad. And learning Chassidus Chabad allows you to answer the question “why yes”. It allows you to find a way “how yes”. Not so that you can do already whatever you wanted to do and not feel guilty about it (even on the most Chassidish, most eidel level).
But so that you can bring G-dliness into one more aspect of this world’s reality. Make holy one more thing that was mundane.
An incredibly amazing shiur
Besides the fact that it talks about amazing topics (how does gilui, revelation, happen vis-á-vis soveiv and memaleh kol almin? where in Seider Hishtalshelus can you say that Soivev Kol Almin “starts”?), this shiur is full of something wonderful: Rabbi Paltiel going off the tangent many times to explain crucial concepts to annoying bochrim. Just absolutely incredible.
Minimum knowledge of Hebrew and general concepts in Chassidus Chabad preferable, but not too much required. Anything you don’t understand — ignore and keep listening. Trust me: even if you understand 10% of what’s said in a general sense, it’s worth it.
For me, the most interesting question is at the end. We say “Chochma starts here” (above Bina, in the world of Atzilus). What about “above” that level? Does above that level Hashem have no chochma? Is He, chv"sh, a non-intelligent Hashem? If not, and if He does have Chochma, in what sense does He?
Another interesting question is: we learn so much Chassidus, and in the end, we learn that we can know nothing about Hashem. A Jew who doesn’t learn Chassidus knows the same thing. Why learn Chassidus?
Then we learn all the Kabbala and learn about all the levels in the Infinite Light, Oir Ein Soif, Lux perpetia. And then we learn that all the real action is here, in this finite, dark, physical world, in doing a single mitzva, in learning Halacha, as it is revealed to us, as it talks about the physical concepts. So, a Jew who learned only Gemara all his life knew all that too — except he didn’t waste his time learning Chassidus; he relied on emunas tzaddikim. So, why learn Kabbala?
The last question is only briefly touched in the shiur, but it also helps to use one’s own head to think. Listen on.
Minimum knowledge of Hebrew and general concepts in Chassidus Chabad preferable, but not too much required. Anything you don’t understand — ignore and keep listening. Trust me: even if you understand 10% of what’s said in a general sense, it’s worth it.
For me, the most interesting question is at the end. We say “Chochma starts here” (above Bina, in the world of Atzilus). What about “above” that level? Does above that level Hashem have no chochma? Is He, chv"sh, a non-intelligent Hashem? If not, and if He does have Chochma, in what sense does He?
Another interesting question is: we learn so much Chassidus, and in the end, we learn that we can know nothing about Hashem. A Jew who doesn’t learn Chassidus knows the same thing. Why learn Chassidus?
Then we learn all the Kabbala and learn about all the levels in the Infinite Light, Oir Ein Soif, Lux perpetia. And then we learn that all the real action is here, in this finite, dark, physical world, in doing a single mitzva, in learning Halacha, as it is revealed to us, as it talks about the physical concepts. So, a Jew who learned only Gemara all his life knew all that too — except he didn’t waste his time learning Chassidus; he relied on emunas tzaddikim. So, why learn Kabbala?
The last question is only briefly touched in the shiur, but it also helps to use one’s own head to think. Listen on.
USSR through the eyes of an American photographer
From 1950s and ’60s.
Here.
Click on most images to enlarge:
(Boris Pasternak, author of Dr. Zhivago — besides other works)
(going to a collective farm for some Obama-style community effort)
(in a Moscow shull)
(Ukrainians. ’nuff said…)
(some peasant father–son bonding)
(at a hippodrome)
More here.
Here.
Click on most images to enlarge:
(Boris Pasternak, author of Dr. Zhivago — besides other works)
(going to a collective farm for some Obama-style community effort)
(in a Moscow shull)
(quick foto)
(skiing in a Petersburg suburb)
(“Wazzup, comrade?”)
(buying books)
(soccer match)
(soccer match)
(Ukrainians. ’nuff said…)
(some peasant father–son bonding)
(at a hippodrome)
More here.
Friday, November 6, 2009
Romance
I can’t not post this. The fourth movement from Sviridov’s Blizzard (see last post for context). Starts with a grave introduction, but wait for it…
All Russia is in these sounds. Russian culture may be not shiny, but it has depth and sharp focus. I am not just talking about gashmius — mostly about ruchnius.
After all, where did Chabad movement start? :) Sure, it is rooted deeply in Yiddishkeit and its sources, but it used the sparks of a certain land.
P.S. The other advantage of Russian culture is that Russian language allows double negatives.
All Russia is in these sounds. Russian culture may be not shiny, but it has depth and sharp focus. I am not just talking about gashmius — mostly about ruchnius.
After all, where did Chabad movement start? :) Sure, it is rooted deeply in Yiddishkeit and its sources, but it used the sparks of a certain land.
P.S. The other advantage of Russian culture is that Russian language allows double negatives.
More troika
For those of you who found the musical accompaniment in the last post boring, here’s another piece, a much more exciting one. It is also called “Troika” and it is the first movement of Sviridov’s “Blizzard” based on the famous short story (a Wikipedia article with plot) by Alexander Pushkin. Besides the music, enjoy some troika- and winter-related images.
The famous waltz. Just listening to this brings images of St. Petersburg to my mind.
Sviridov is a very famous Soviet composer. His most famous piece was a theme for evening news. It is called “Vremya vperyod” (“Time forward”). Although the piece above is more gentle, it’s easy to recognize similar handwriting. The evening news theme starts around 1:00.
The famous waltz. Just listening to this brings images of St. Petersburg to my mind.
Sviridov is a very famous Soviet composer. His most famous piece was a theme for evening news. It is called “Vremya vperyod” (“Time forward”). Although the piece above is more gentle, it’s easy to recognize similar handwriting. The evening news theme starts around 1:00.
Troika
The word troika can mean different things in Russian language (see Wikipedia entry), but in this case it means a carriage with three horses. It can be small, like in the above picture, or bigger. For some reason, in Russian mentality, it’s a very romantic image, symbolizing life moving forward, a country (usually Russia) going through changes, or a person’s destiny.
Some balalaika music on the topic (at the beginning you can hear the bells which were usually attached to troikas):
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Abusive rabbis
An interesting article: “What to Do with Abusive Rabbis: Halachic Considerations”. A quote (all comments except the first one are the author’s):
P.S. A riddle from Mottel with a nice video.
{Rambam,} Hil. Sanhedrin 2:7:The main question of the article: is it possible to separate the content from the source? Should we listen to a smoking doctor? Should rabbis be held to higher standards than average (frum) people? What about frum people in general?
“[Choose] wise and understanding men, [known among your tribes, and I will make them rulers over you]” (Deut. 1:13) refers to those with wisdom; “known to the tribes” refers to those who are well regarded by others. How is it that they are well regarded? In that they are magnanimous, humble, and friendly, and their speech and dealings are pleasant.
When it also says, “[And you shall choose out of all the people] men of valor, [such as fear G-d, men of truth, hating unjust gain]” (Ex. 18:21), this refers to those who excel in [the observance of] the commandments, who set high personal standards [of behavior] and who control their evil inclinations, such that there is nothing about them that is objectionable, that they do not have bad reputations or unsavory histories.
Included in [the requirement of] “men of valor” are those who have the courage to save the oppressed from the hands of the oppressor, as it says, “And Moses arose and saved them” (Ex. 2:17). In addition, just as Moses was humble, so every judge must be humble; “G-d fearing,” as it implies; “hating unjust gain,” hastening after riches, even their own, and they do not run to amass wealth…; “men of truth” that they are personally motivated to pursue justice, love truth and hate violence, and flee from all kinds of immorality.
P.S. A riddle from Mottel with a nice video.
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Some quotes
… from my favorite writer, Andrszei Sapkowski.
You never get a second chance to make the first impression.Source
There are presents one should not accept, without being able to repay with something equally valuable.
Betting people can be of two types: fools and scoundrels. The first one bets, but doesn’t know. The second knows, but bets.
If you decide to commit suicide, don’t involve other people. Just hang yourself quietly in the stables.
To love is not just to take, but also to sacrifice.
To be neutral doesn’t mean to be uncaring or lacking empathy. One doesn’t need to kill one’s emotions. It’s enough to kill hatred.
We know very little about love. It’s like a pear. Sweet and of a certain shape. But try to define the shape of a pear!
Don’t confuse the night sky with stars reflected in a puddle.
Life is different from banking in that it knows debts, which can be repaid only by making new debts.
You can’t pay for something priceless. There are those who say that everything has a price. They are mistaken. Some things don’t. It’s easy to recognize such a thing: once you lose it, you can’t get it back.
Every moment has eternity in it. And eternity is made up of such moments.
Love is like pain from kidney stones. Before you experience it, you have no idea what it’s like. And when others tell you, you don’t believe them.
Love laughs at rationality. That is why it’s so attractive.
Progress is like a swine herd. Pigs are good for agriculture. There is salted meat, bones, holodetz with horseradish. In other words, benefit. So, don’t turn up your nose and complain that there is shit everywhere.
We can cause hale, but we can’t stop death. Although, seemingly, the second should be easier than the first.
I don’t want to be sorry for doing nothing, for hesitation and doubts. If I am going to be sorry for something, let it be decisions and actions.
That the world will be renewed I believe. That it will become better — not so much.
The real king is one that has a queen. Who has a queen has a kingdom.
If you’re being hanged, ask for a glass of water. While they’re bringing it, who knows what will happen?
With time comes a point when you either need to do your business or abandon the restroom.
If Evil is trying to hurt you, hurt it first. Preferably when it expects it least.
You know what University education gives somebody? Knowledge how to use sources.
Everyone can predict future. A lot of people do it all the time. It’s not a big deal to predict future. A big deal is to do it accurately.
I’ve seen war. I’ve seen many marshalls, generals, officers, get’mans, knights, strategists. I’ve seen them standing over maps with red arrows and little pins. This, they explained, is war machine. It’s all about organization. Order. Without organization, no war can happen. This makes it even more ironic that the real war — and I’ve had a chance to witness several real wars — in terms of order and organization resembles a brothel on fire.
There are things you understand immediately, without words. Or never.
Ignorance does not excuse thoughtless acts. If there is something you don’t know, ask for advice.
Wisdom is ability to ignore stupid advice.
Do you know how to recognize historic times? When a lot of stuff happens very quickly.
All troubles of the world are from thinking. When people completely incapable of it try their hand at it.
The most hated people are snitches who do their job for little pay.
The question is not what we will be accused of, but what we will acknowledge.
People believe in stupidity that is repeated often enough.
We did something good, so we need to pay for it. Every foolishness needs to be paid for.
Everything can be accomplished. The only question is: how?
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Court singer
Some courts have court jesters (think Joe Biden). Some courts have court singers.
In case it’s not clear, the court singer is on the right. On the left is the court jest… I mean, the President of Russian Federation.
By the way, in Russia there used to be an expression: pridvornyj yevrey, a court Jew. In our times, it’s people like Richard Goldstone. Times have changed. Back in the day, lowlives like this fellow ratted out other Jews to KGB. In our times, they slander Israel to the United Nations. Choosing between KGB and UN, I’ll pick UN anytime. Don’t get me wrong, they are both pretty evil, but at least KGB accomplished what it set out to do and had some… chutzpa.
P.S. Can an immigrant from South Africa to the US (or a child of two such immigrants) call himself an African American?
In case it’s not clear, the court singer is on the right. On the left is the court jest… I mean, the President of Russian Federation.
By the way, in Russia there used to be an expression: pridvornyj yevrey, a court Jew. In our times, it’s people like Richard Goldstone. Times have changed. Back in the day, lowlives like this fellow ratted out other Jews to KGB. In our times, they slander Israel to the United Nations. Choosing between KGB and UN, I’ll pick UN anytime. Don’t get me wrong, they are both pretty evil, but at least KGB accomplished what it set out to do and had some… chutzpa.
P.S. Can an immigrant from South Africa to the US (or a child of two such immigrants) call himself an African American?
Sunday, November 1, 2009
Lost Soul Blues
What's friendship? The hangover's faction,
The gratis talk of outrage,
Exchange by vanity, inaction,
Or bitter shame of patronage.
— Alexander Pushkin
Nice tips
The dude in the picture is the governor of Chukotka (if you are in Alaska, looking west over the Bering strait, that’s what you see), owner of Chelsey soccer team, and one of the most influential Jews of Russia.
In other news, a question: what is worse — to read secular literature (including fiction) or to listen to secular music?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)